You know it’s a thunderbolt connection on a MacBook. They stopped using the USB symbol when they used the usb for thunderbolt and stopped using the mini display port.
It could be, but combine the color looking very much like Apple's space grey, the slimness of it, particularly how slim the lid is versus the body, and what looks like the MacBook's classic black, rounded rubber stoppers on the bottom, I think it's safe to say that's meant to be an MacBook.
Also certain MacBook models tried to go to a single USB C port about a decade ago, and it was on the corner like that.
True, my latest Dell laptop has 3 "usb-c shaped ports", there is 0 symbol anywhere close to them or the underside cover, you're on your own as to what it supports, you have to find the doc online somewhere I guess.
I discovered that my Thinkpad apparently supports charging from all of the (unlabeled) USB-C ports after I inadvertently started it charging from my cell phone's (unlabeled) USB-C port.
Tbf my work Dell Latitude 5440 has a USB A with a SS5, an A with a SS5 and charging indicator, a C with a thunderbolt indicator, and a C with a battery and a thunderbolt indicator.
So at least some of their laptops do in fact have the indicators similar-ish enough to what the infographic shows.
Why would you need them on a MacBook? They're always* Thunderbolt.
Edit: Better explained by GamingChairModel below. I entirely forgot one series of MacBook, and also forgot when the older ones did have the Thunderbolt symbol on them.
It gets even better, each function of the port also needs proper support from the cable. Often cables do not support the full spec of usb to cut costs.
While the symbols in the post are often put on computers, for usb cables this is seldom done (only a few brands do).
Source: had to find a cable that supports both DP and PD to connect a portable external monitor after I lost the original cable. (1/9 cables worked)
Yeah, it's gotten so bad I eventually ordered a USB cable checker to figure out what any given USB cable is capable of (and to see if the cable has gone flaky, which seems to happen a lot). I haven't received it yet so I don't know if I can recommend this item, but ... gosh darn you sure need something like this.
For that portable monitor, you should just need a cable with USB-C plugs on both ends which supports USB 3.0+ (could be branded as SuperSpeed, 5Gbps, etc). Nothing more complicated than that.
The baseline for a cable with USB-C on both ends should be PD up to 60W (3A) and data transfers at USB 2.0 (480Mbps) speeds.
Most cables stick with that baseline because it's enough to charge phones and most people won't use USB-C cables for anything else. Omitting the extra capabilities lets cables be not only cheaper but also longer and thinner.
DisplayPort support uses the same extra data pins that are needed for USB 3.0 data transfers, so in terms of cable support they should be equivalent. There also exist higher-power cables rated for 100W or 240W but there's no way a portable monitor would need that.
Luckily, all new PC seem to choose Thunderbolt over only alt mode, which makes stuff more easy, since they have the flash on the cable (but are also more extensive, I gear
Sometimes people want to charge their phone in an outlet 10 feet from their airport seat.
Sometimes people want to transmit 8k video.
It's not physically possible to do both tasks with the same cable.
But because USB is a flexible standard, we don't have two incompatible specs to do the same thing. So when you get out of the airport and to your meeting, you can actually plug your phone into the meeting room projector for your business presentation. That's a win.
TL;DR: The USB Implementers Forum is ridiculously bad at naming, symbols and communication in general. (And they don't seriously enforce any of this anyway, so don't even bother learning it.)
This is the correct answer; after the whole USB 3.2 Gen 2 2x2 (hands of blue) bullshit, I wouldn’t trust that team to name a park bench in the middle of the desert. Let alone something important and universally used.
We could have gone for already proven and tested conventions like the resistor color codes and have a unique distinguishable icon for each features to attach when needed (like thunder icon for high power). But nope, we got this USB 3.2 Gen 4 2x2 Hyper Turbocharged World Champions and Knuckles Platinum Edition bs instead.
The bench is called "Bench" (legacy name, it's actually more like a concrete slab, but at the time it was more benchy that the previous bench which was just a pile of sand).
the whole USB 3.2 Gen 2 2x2 (hands of blue) bullshit
If you're not trying to wire your own USB port you can just use the recommended names "USB SuperSpeed 20 Gbps" or "USB 20 Gbps". You don't have to be confused by technical names if you don't want to be.
The real bullshit is between your ears--you and only you can fix it.
They are not bad at this. You are bad at understanding it.
I work with this stuff, and I do understand it. Some of my colleagues are actively participating in USB-IF workgroups, although not the ones responsible for naming end user facing things. They come to me for advice when those other workgroups changed some names retroactively again and we need to make sure we are still backwards compatible with things that rely on those names and that we are not confusing our customers more than necessary.
That is why I am very confident in claiming those naming schemes are bad.
"don’t even bother learning it" is my advice for normal end users, and I do stand by it.
But the names are not hard if you bother to learn them.
Never said it is hard.
It is more complex than it needs to be.
It is internally inconsistent.
Names get changed retroactively with new spec releases.
None of that is hard to learn, just not worth the effort.
There is some stuff to be learned, but especially with USB-C I'd say the vast majority are not labeled. There's even some devices charged with USB C that can't be charged with a PD charger and need an A to C cable. Phones are a great example where you have to look up the specs to know data transfer capabilities. Additionally they renamed the USB 3.0 standard which has been established for over a decade to USB 3.1 Gen 1 which is completely unnecessary and just serves to confuse. The standard was largely understandable with USB 3.0 generally being blue or at least a color other than black and on decently modern devices USB 2.0 would be black. With USB-C indication has just about gone out the window and what used to be a very simple to understand standard has now become nearly impossible to understand without having researched every device and cable you interact with.
Last I looked, these (and the "blue plastic for USB 3" convention) weren't mandated by the spec. So it's not that they're violating the spec, but that they're optional.
And that's the real issue with the USB spec, almost everything is optional. This would be fine if cables were largely interchangeable, but they're not.
What they should have are a handful of very well-defined tiers. Cables should maybe have three (basic, mid-range, high end), and ports can have a couple more.
The USB-C standard and particularly the USB PD (power delivery) is so complex it almost feels comical.
The PD standard document (freely available on usb.org) is over 800 pages long and features a lengthy part about the role of the cable alone which is mostly hidden from the user. Here's a short video about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZ0y9G-4Pc
The USB standards are just... Comically overcomplicated. And almost everything about it is optional. They need a full revamp, making it simpler and mandatory on all future ports, devices and cables.
Almost everything about it needs to be optional because sometimes USB is used to charge some cheap battery powered thing and sometimes it’s used to make a backup of a harddrive and sometimes it’s charging my laptop with enough power for it to be rendering video but still have a net charge increase to the battery while also providing Ethernet, video output, and keyboard/mouse input over the same one port.
EDIT to make it more clear why the variability of USB standards is what it is, compare a modern laptop to one from 10 years ago.
The older laptop has:
for video, an HDMI port (or the less common mini HDMI port), and perhaps a mini DP port
an Ethernet port
a charging plug
possibly some FireWire ports (may or may not be the same as the mini DP port)
USB A ports for keyboard/mouse and other random devices
The newer laptop has:
USBC ports that can do all of the above
The perhiperals, however, don’t support all of the features. They only support the features they actually use. As long as the laptop supports all of the optional features, you don’t need to worry about it.
The is especially helpful for less technical users who may not want to know what the difference between HDMI and DisplayPort is. With a fully USBC based laptop and USBC perhipals you can just plug it in and it will work.
Of course this is all dependent on the laptop implementing all of the extra features, which is still only really true of more expensive laptops.
Maybe optional opt out? Like to say you are usb-4 you have to have this format and support all of these features. Other you are USB 4 W/O x,y,z,PD,Video,etc. I also think PD levels should be labeled on power sources and sinks.
Thank God there's a standard for USB. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one....
If you're trying to get Lemmy to print the backslash, you need to make it a double backslash since backslash is an "escape" character that means "ignore any special formatting meaning of the next character" (among other meanings)
I guess they could have a USB certification body, kinda like UL is for wall power devices, and require that a device have an certification ID number on it that you could look up in their online database to qualify. I mean, you could forge a fake number that doesn't map to anything, but I feel like that's a higher bar than just throwing a USB symbol on there. Like, you gotta know that you're doing something fraudulent in that case.
investigates
Huh.
Apparently UL does certify USB devices. I have no idea how to tell whether a UL-marked device of a given age is certified to do what from the logo alone, though. I guess you could look it up with UL.
I bet that only my high-power USB chargers have it, though. Honestly, I didn't even know that they covered USB, wouldn't have looked for a UL mark on USB devices.
investigates
Well, my Logitech F710 gamepad does have a UL mark. That's some proprietary wireless protocol, uses AA batteries. Not USB and doesn't plug into the wall. Dunno whether they certified it for wireless or power safety or whatever.
looks further
I have a wired USB gamepad with a bunch of Chinese characters, the URL "www.izdtech.com", no USB labels, and no UL mark.
I have a wired/wireless USB 8Bitdo gamepad with a CE mark, USB symbols, and no UL mark (I understand that CE doesn't work like UL. It doesn't indicate that any independent organization has tested the device, just is a concise way to state that the device manufacturer states that the device conforms to some set of standards).
I have a 100W USB PD "Nekteck" charger with a UL mark and some ID number that looks to be associated with that, no CE mark, an FCC mark that I assume is related to RF interference compliance, an enormous USB standard mark with the 100 watt capability listed, and some sort of mark with a box inside another box that I don't recognize.
I have an SIIG USB audio interface that has no USB labels, a CE mark, an FCC mark, and no UL mark.
I have a USB-powered audio mixer that has no USB labels, no FCC mark, no UL mark and a CE mark.
I have a laptop USB charger that has no USB labels, a CE mark, multiple UL marks, one of which appears to be in some sort of teardrop-looking thing, some "UK CA" mark that I assume is some kind of UK regulatory body. It's got that same mysterious "box in a box" mark that I saw before, "VI" in a circle, a picture of a house, some "NYCE" mark, and a "NOM" mark.
I bet that most people have basically no idea what any of this means. I probably know what more of it means than the average person, but definitely not enough to extract a whole lot of information from this. And all of these have a different set of marks; there is no least-common-denominator mark.
Additionally, USB 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 labels provide no information on the speed. Rather, "Gen 1" means 5Gb/s, Gen 2 means 10 and Gen 2×2 means 20Gb/s. These "Gen" labels are seldom found on products however.
So for example USB 3.2 Gen 1 is 5Gb/s while USB 3.1 Gen 2 is 10Gb/s
The dear people at the USB Forum should be rewarded with the Nobel prize in namology for their clear, superior and non-confusing naming scheme and naming process that even the nerdiest of nerds can't follow.
This has already been fixed by the forum FYI, the new spec is to just put clear text labels that denote the capability of the port. I can't find the article I read but this one has an example of the new user-facing branding.
Why can't I tether my phone to my laptop with two out of three of my cables?
I have an Android phone with a USB-C port and a laptop with (several) USB-C ports.
I have three cables that I carry with me: a USB-C-to-USB-C cable, a second USB-C-to-USB-C cable, and a USB-A-to-USB-C cable. None of these are charging-only power cables, and I've used them for data connections.
One of the USB-C-to-USB-C -- an unmarked cable -- permits for USB tethering to be used.
The other two do not.
The other USB-C-to-USB-C cable even has USB 3.1 symbol.
I don't know why.
Looking more-closely, it looks like the other two don't have a data connection established between the Android phone and the laptop from the laptop's perspective. They've let me do so with other devices.
Checking what data transfer rates a given cable supports electrically
As far as I can tell, there isn't a way to query the "e-marker" on a USB cable from Linux today; I found a comment from someone saying that kernel support is still being worked on. You can use lsusb -t to show the negotiated speed between two devices, so can use them to infer the speed, as long as you have fast-enough devices at both ends of the cable.
What USB PD rates does a USB cable or power consumer or charger support?
I don't know of a good way to determine this from a user standpoint. Note that this is a matrix of voltages and currents, so it isn't just "I support up to rate X". Also, not all devices display the rate of power that they are providing or consuming -- in fact, most don't. My Android phone, a reasonably-sophisticated device and one with a display and capable of both providing or consuming power, doesn't show the rate of power consumption or provision, just "slow" or "fast", without additional software. I understand that that software doesn't work on all Android hardware.
I have -- had -- a laptop that just won't charge if a charger doesn't support a certain USB PD profile, which its provided charger did but not all charging devices did.
When I plug in two devices that both support USB PD, which is the consumer and which the provider?
When I'm in my car, I typically I have three devices that have USB PD ports and can either provide or consume power -- a large powerstation, a laptop, and a phone. I eventually learned a few facts:
First, the direction in which power is being provided via USB PD is independent of which device is operating as a USB host or device using USB OTG ports; it's possible for the direction to be different from the direction of power provision.
Second, apparently the direction of host/device order is random, and devices just remember the host/device direction for a certain amount of time, so that if you plug two USB OTG devices into each other and the direction is not what you want, the idea is that you can figure it out from one or more of the devices indicating this and then unplug them and plug them in again to get transfer in the other direction.
Third, as best I can tell empirically, USB PD does the same random thing.
This creates all kinds of fun if one device powers off and then on again or something; my laptop can start draining its power to my powerstation (generally not what I want), or my phone to my laptop, since all the USB PD ports in question support USB PD in both directions.
Which end is which on an active USB cable?
I have an active optical USB cable, which I obtained so that I could put my computer in a closet, a long way from the rest of my devices; USB on copper has very limited range at present-day speeds without a repeater. It functions in only one direction in terms of data transfer (and obviously can't move power). That particular manufacturer labeled it, though there's no standard for labeling that.
In sum
USB does have reasonably good fallback, so most cables and most devices tend to sort of do something to some degree -- they move some amount of power and some rate of data, though some devices have hard demands on what they need and there isn't a great way to assess what a cable or device supports in most cases from an end user standpoint. But it definitely could be a lot better from my standpoint.
Additionally, USB 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 labels provide no information on the speed
Correct.
USB X.X is the name of the technical whitepaper that describes the standard.
For a long time, USB had three transfer rates. The first legacy speed (slowest) was hardly ever used. The Second was called "Full Speed" and the fastest was called "Hi-speed". Because people could not remember which if these two were faster, they referred to the whitepapers in which they were introduced.
When later versions of USB were introduced people have tried to continue this mental "shortcut" and have caused themselves nothing but confusion.
Every device I have just has a couple of blue ones and a couple of black ones, perhaps some orange ones and some USB-C ports, and good luck figuring out what they all can do. No symbols anywhere.
If they're following the standard, which they often do but sometimes don't, white indicates 2.0 and blue indicates 3.0+. I think there are more but I don't remember the other colours.
Blue is a convention to indicate USB 3. Of course, not everyone actually implements that, and USB-C ports don't, as far as I know, do that at all, just USB-A.
My current desktop does both -- the case has USB ports on the top that come off a USB header from the motherboard, which have a simple number "3.0" pointing at its USB-A ports in front, but uses black plastic for them. The motherboard's USB connectors in back use the "blue plastic" convention on its USB-A 3 ports, and black plastic on its USB-A 2 ports. The motherboard also labels the USB 3 ports by having a text label reading "USB 3.2", which isn't listed on OP's set of symbols, and puts symbols on them.
The blue USB port is also known as USB 3.0 or SuperSpeed (SS) USB. It was introduced in 2008 and offers a data transfer speed of up to 5 Gbps, which is more than 10 times faster than USB 2.0. In addition, it can transfer data in both directions simultaneously.
I definitely have a number of devices that use newer-than-USB 3.0 and use blue.
The teal USB port is also known as the USB 3.1 Gen 1 or SuperSpeed+ (SS+) USB. Released in 2013, it supports up to 10 Gbps data transfer speed, which is twice as fast as USB 3.0. The color is similar to USB 3.0, but it will appear as slightly more green-toned than the classic blue of 3.0. This is the easiest way to differentiate USB 3.0 vs 3.1 ports.
I don't think any of my devices actually use teal, regardless of what they support. Oh...hmm. Wait, I think my last desktop motherboard did that.
goes to investigate
Yeah, it has teal and blue ports.
My current motherboard uses blue or red for everything USB-A, so clearly isn't using blue to indicate "USB 3.0", and labels every port, blue or red, in English as "USB 3.2". So it clearly isn't using the port color to indicate purely speed.
The red USB port is generally classified as USB 3.2, which was released in 2017. However, it can also be used to indicate a USB 3.1 Gen 2 port.
Another source of novelty and excitement.
Yellow USB Port Meaning
The yellow USB port is another color that can indicate either USB 3.2 or USB 3.1 Gen 2.
So much excitement.
The yellow USB port is more commonly found on laptops while the red USB port is more commonly found on desktop computers. This is because the yellow USB port indicates that it is always on, meaning it will continue to draw power even when the computer is turned off or in sleep mode. As a result, you can generally use it to charge other devices, such as smartphones.
I just love that in a world with Power Delivery (PD) they decided that the best way to indicate Display Port (DP) was to have an ambiguous symbol involving a P and a D.
You'll want to run USB PD, not to be confused with the USB "P" and "D" label which refers to DisplayPort, not to be confused with some other ways of transporting DisplayPort over USB. And you'll want charging support, so look for the USB lightning bolt that means "USB charging", not to be confused with the different USB lightning bolt that means "Thunderbolt", which isn't the same thing as the Lightning connector that is about the same size as the USB-C connector and was used in a similar role on various devices.
DisplayPort not to be confused with display port, when someone asks you for a "display port cable" and you start going to pick one of VGA/HDMI/DVI cables instead.
The P and D symbol is the DisplayPort logo. I'm not sure when it was first used, but the DisplayPort standard itself is quite a bit older than USB Power Delivery.
It's still confusing though regardless of which can lay the best claim to the letters P and D. I would have suggested Power Delivery could use some sort of lightning bolt symbol, but then I realised that would probably conflict with Thunderbolt, which also uses USB-C.
It's almost as if having all these different features would be easier to differentiate if they had different physical shapes.
Yeah, Display Port is old, but I've never seen that P and D symbol before, or at least never noticed it. And, even if it existed before Display Port over USB, you'd think that that potential confusion was a good opportunity to come up with a new logo for something that would be put next to a USB port.
It’s almost as if having all these different features would be easier to differentiate if they had different physical shapes.
I think the goal was always that you'd only ever need one type of port and one type of cable and that that port and cable could do anything. Unfortunately, because there are so many revisions and so many features are optional, you've now got a situation where the port is the right shape, the cable fits into the port, but you can't get the thing to work without reading the fine print, or without decoding obscure logos.
Also, giving anything the initials "DP" is weird and creepy as fuck, given that "DP" was already a well-established acronym in the porn industry years before DisplayPort was even conceptualized.
Given that there are engineers involved I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was deliberate. Trying to get potentially offensive or otherwise NSFW acronyms past marketing without them noticing is practically an industry-wide joke at this point, which is why they are so prevalent in the FOSS space. (no marketing staff to complain)
If that's true in this case, though, hats off to whoever managed to get it though to official commercial standards
Mine is worse, it says it can do way more than 20Mbps, but once the buffer is exhausted, it hangs frequently. And this isn't some random POS from AliExpress, I bought it retail at BestBuy.
If you're ok with some bulk, go for an nvme enclosure. I have a sabrent one with a 256 GB crucial gen 3 drive in it, it's a slow cheap drive, still substantially better than any usb key and you can put one together for under $100 cad including a longer high speed cable.
I just did a fresh install off of my usb key and wow, super slow compared to any time I've done off my enclosure
We're not calling it that anymore. It's been rebranded to "SuperDuper Speed USB ]|[" now. Note that this is a different standard than the previous "SuperDuper Speed USB 3," and under no circumstances should you call it "SuperDuper Speed USB 3.0," because there was never any such spec and pedantic nerds will climb up your nose in the comments if you ever utter it.
It's not just USB PD that supports power delivery: Standard USB from way back in 1.0 also supports power delivery to devices as standard, but it's only up to 100mA in USB 1.0, 500mA in USB 2.0 and 900mA in USB 3.0, all at 5V.
USB PD is a dedicated power delivery USB protocol that supports much higher currents (up to 5A) as well as dynamically configured voltages (so, not fixed as 5V anymore) though it's all negotiated so your 5V-only phones isn't going to just get burned with 20V from a USB PD charger.
Since Power = Current * Voltage USB PD can put out quite a lot of power for supporting devices (the maximum depending on what both sides support), which means much faster transmission of power via USB which for example means faster charging of chargeable devices via USB with USB PD.
Anyways, the point being that even really old USB 1.0 can charge your device (just really really slow, though you'll be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't support at least USB 2.0 which can send 5x the current of 1.0 hence charge 5x faster than it), and that standard charging speed goes up with each new Standard USB generation since each has a higher maximum current than the previous one, so for example a standard USB 3.1 charger without USB PD support can still push a nice amount of power down the line to charge devices. It's just that with USB PD things really take off (though only up to a shared maximum that both sides support) and it can push enough power to support larger devices such as full-blown monitors or even charging notebooks.
iPhone 15, Samsung A series phones and tablets, most Motorola devices, most oppo devices, most realme devices, most nothing devices, most xiaome devices, and many more
My headphones (Sennheiser Momentum 4) have Bluetooth, USB, and phone jack support. When using Bluetooth mode with the latest firmware update, they sporadically shut down while using in Bluetooth Multipoint mode.
I used headphones for decades very happily with a 1/8th inch jack.
They weren't perfect.
Some devices used a 1/4 inch jack. This at least was electrically-compatible, so one just needed a cheap, appropriately-shaped piece of metal to adapt them.
The 1/8th inch jack connector took up enough space that the smartphone guys eventually mostly banished it from phones, to try to get a bit more space in the device.
There wasn't a standard impedance. While most consumer devices used more-or-less the same impedance (and if you had to, you could just adjust the volume up or down slightly with different headphones) some higher-end headphones required a headphones amplifier that could push more power.
When you plugged a device in, it briefly shorted the connector, and made a lot of noise.
It wasn't wireless (which could be seen as a minus or plus, depending upon whether you wanted ability to walk away from a computer in exchange for a set of other complexities and issues).
It couldn't transmit power (well, not much; there was a convention for doing so that didn't become widespread). That became more significant with the rise of headphones with active noise cancellation, which would need at least some way to get power to the headphones.
But honestly, those were mostly pretty minor problems. Headphones just worked in virtually all cases.
I didn't have to worry about whether-or-not my headphones supported a given sampling rate, the number of devices that could connect to my headphones, wireless interference, or physical plug compatibility aside from the 1/8th inch and 1/4 inch issue (well, and occasionally 2.5mm headset connectors on phones). USB audio didn't resolve the calibrated volume issue, one of the few annoyances I had with the analog connector. I have one set of Bluetooth headphones that start breaking up when I leave the room with the transceiver and another that work flawlessly across the house. I have charging rates to worry about, and whether the device is smart enough to have a battery management system capable of prolonging battery life by shutting off charging at appropriate points. The protocol and physical connector for telephone jacks has changed twice over the past hundred+ years, once to add a ring (for stereo) and once to move from 1/4 inch to 1/8th inch. The Bluetooth and USB standards, while providing for some level of backwards compatibility, have changed like some people change socks. There are different audio protocols (and in some cases competing audio codecs, like LDAC vs aptX). Lossy compression becomes an issue with Bluetooth. Some devices don't support some sampling rates; analog headphones don't care. Having (effectively) zero-latency pass-through mixing is guaranteed doable with any analog headphones with the appropriate mixer, so that one can hear some other audio source live; that's not an option with Bluetooth or USB headphones.
I do like active noise cancellation, and the wireless functionality can occasionally be handy (though in general, it isn't a game-changer for me). But I feel like the user experience has gotten a lot more problematic, in general.
You'd be surprised. My mouse only needs 2.0, but uses a C connector for compatibility. It provides an A to C cable with only 2.0 wiring, which is a decision I assume they made to allow the wire to be more flexible as it can be charged during use or used entirely wired.
Same with my keyboard, and I appreciate the compatibility. If it doesn't need anything faster than 2.0 speeds, there's no reason to include more expensive parts.
It's also important to permit use of adapters for backwards compatibility. Like, if we stop having computers with A ports, there are still gonna be some very expensive devices out there that have A ports. You aren't going to throw out your electron microscope with a USB A port because the USB guys have decided that USB-C being reversible is cool.
Meh, while there really could be less. At least they are all physically compatible. And backwards protocol compatible to the lowest common denominator. Which is a huge step forward.
Seriously, as an IT person, I still never know what most of my USB ports are capable of, but I'm glad they are backwards compatible. If something is slow, then I try a different cable and port.
They mostly support an electrical least-common-denominator (like, I have USB devices that won't accept USB PD for charging below a given level), but they definitely aren't all physically-compatible. There are a lot of physical USB connectors.
I think that maybe having two similar lightning bolt symbols that mean different things wasn't the best design decision that the USB guys could have made.
I mean, they fixed that with USB-C (after introducing one small USB port, mini-USB, that wasn't reversible, with the tensioners that wear out on the expensive (device) side and and then introducing micro-USB which fixed the tensioners but still wasn't reversible).
I'd personally kind of like to have magnetic breakaway connectors or similar so that I can't damage devices if they fall, especially given that micro-USB and USB-C aren't the most-physically-robust of connectors. Adapters with proprietary ways to do this exist:
The 'Thunderbolt' symbol is Intel's proprietary technology. Apple and Intel made it. First apple registered Thunderbolt as a trademark but later they transferred it to Intel. The lightning bolt icon which supports fast charging phones or other devices when connected to the laptop is different and developed by the USB guys.
One should note that though Thunderbolt over USB-C offers the same speed and connectivity as a native thunderbolt cable, the native cable can be 40m long whereas the USB-C implementation is max 2m
While USB is now needlessly complicated and poorly labeled for consumer understanding, at least it succeeds in being backwards compatible so long as the physical connectors match (and all you need is a dumb adapter to convert any connector). If you have a 3.0 port on one device, a 2.0 port on the other device, and a 3.1 cable, you get 2.0 transfer speeds.
HDMI has the same kind of "issue". Whatever the specs on each component, throughput and features drop to the lowest common denominator when in use.
USB in 1996: lets let you plug any device into the back of your computer.
USB in 2024: phones, tablets laptops are going to charge at crazy voltages and we're going to show you 8k video all over the same port and you can insert it in both directions and we're still going to connect any device to any device.
On desktop PCs, Depending upon the Motherboard manufacturer and model series, it could either mean nothing other than some gaming marketing jargon or...
When a motherboard has both red and blue ports, the Red ones could be those connected directly to the CPU lanes for USB, with the blue ones being routed through the PCH.
If there is just one red coloured USB A port, it might be designated for BIOS updates (unless they have another colour for that).
There is no standard what red USB A ports mean. Could be fast charging through some proprietary protocol or other special features. Or just a design choice.
USB ports with no symbol just don't advertise what they're capable of. Most phones support super speed data transfer. Basic USB-PD and display port output support is also common. They may also support other stuff, like pretending to be a webcam, audio output and much more. But you usually have to look in the manual or data sheet to know what is supported.
On gigabyte boards, red ports were/are signifying their "ON/OFF charge" and "3x power" gimmicks. Basically means that it's a usb 2.0, with 1.5A limit over normal 500mA, and remains powered when the PC is turned off.
I've never seen any of the SS 10gig or USB PD icons, but I've seen the rest. I've got Thunderbolt icons on at least 2 icons and SS USB 3.1 icons on many normal USB A ports.
The standard might be complicated if you want the specifics, but for everyday use it's incredibly simple, and I love it. The number of times I needed this information is 1, even though most of my devices, including an external monitor, are USB-C.
Yeah. I grew up in the days of serial ports and parallel ports, and USB in general is so much better for most purposes. (I recall plugging my first mouse into the serial port...but wait! Where will my Hayes Smartmodem modem plug into then? Also, don't plug and unplug things from the serial port while the computer is running.)
And USB-C is even better. My tablet needs a charge? Well my laptop charger is right here... My phone is low and needs a quick charge? Well my USB-C tablet charger will give it a decent boost very quickly. No worries about getting it plugged in the wrong way, either.
I have a docking station for my work laptop, so when I had to replace my personal laptop, a laptop that supported USB-C power delivery was mandatory. I don't use it with the docking station very often, but knowing I can without an issue is great. My wife also has a Macbook that works on the docking station, too, in case she ever wants to use my dual monitor setup. All three laptops, from three different brands, are just plug in and go.
I can't imagine how you think it's incredibly simple. These things are hell to explain to pretty much any normal person who needs to know why there's no picture on the monitor or why their laptop/phone is not charging, or why the keyboard isn't working in BIOS (no USB 3 support so you gotta switch to a USB 2 port). Add to that the combinatorial complexity of different cables and hubs supporting different things, and no tools for troubleshooting what feature is missing (and where in the chain) or what is suboptimal.
Worse, sometimes it's my boss who thinks they can cheap out and get a USBC dock instead of a proper dock, forcing me to run at non-native lower resolutions or unable to use a second screen.
It's future proof and doesn't need a decoder manual other than basic literacy. It can be in whatever language the fucking keyboard is. If you want to be redundant but even more clear:
Honestly, I didn't really have an issue with USB type A ports. They worked fine, and it was only a minor inconvenience to orient them the right way. I cared far more about capabilities of the port (speed, power delivery, etc) than I did about the actual port.
That said, micro-USB sucks in every way. The awkward "is this the right way?" thing is way worse than with USB-A, it's not meaningfully smaller than mini-USB, the port is incredibly hard to clean (and it always gets dirty), and the connector seems to break all the time. I would've been totally fine with moving everything to mini-USB instead. The connector was less flimsy without being that much bigger, and it had room for more wires.
I do like USB-C though, I'm just not sure the added complexity is worth it.
Honestly, I didn’t really have an issue with USB type A ports. They worked fine, and it was only a minor inconvenience to orient them the right way. I cared far more about capabilities of the port (speed, power delivery, etc) than I did about the actual port.
I believe that the reason that the smaller USB variants showed up was because some devices were just too small to physically accommodate a USB-A plug. Think MP3 players and later -- very importantly -- smartphones.
For the vast majority of consumer electronics, USB-A is fine. But for things that are as thin as possible, usually to fit into a pocket, it starts to bump up against limits.
That said, micro-USB sucks in every way. The awkward “is this the right way?” thing is way worse than with USB-A, it’s not meaningfully smaller than mini-USB, the port is incredibly hard to clean (and it always gets dirty), and the connector seems to break all the time. I would’ve been totally fine with moving everything to mini-USB instead.
Mini-USB put the tensioners -- the bit that wears out over time, is the bottleneck on the lifetime of the thing -- on the (expensive) device rather than the (cheap) cable. Micro-USB and USB-C didn't make that mistake.
Like, I think that there was a legitimate reason to fix that one way or another.
Those will legally do pretty much anything depending on what cable you use anyway. (and what cable you end up using is pretty much a surprise until you've tested it.)
All thanks to USB making our lives more simple. (yay)
Ok, I suppose it is more simple in quite a few ways.
some additional info about USB. If your cable/connector is old, idk how old is requred, the names and standards are actually completely different now than they used to be, but they're adopted into the new standards, so you have to keep this in mind when trying to recognize this stuff.
I can't even find a decent PCIE USB/Thunderbolt card (one that support VFIO would be nice and actually has a Linux kernel driver, so ASM and Renesas are both out..)